I really enjoyed reading this personal narrative from Newsweek My Turn Online by Deborah Lewis. It provoked several questions and I felt like I could relate her structure and style to some of the things I have been learning about in our more 'technical' readings. It is a well-written piece of personal narration! The first thing I noticed was her development of the 'I' character. I was impressed how effectively the writer accomplished describing herself enough so that the reader can understand some of her background without reading other useless facts about her life. She first presents her experience with cancer briefly without really making a judgment of the situation. She then intermittently provides more details about her life where they are appropriate in the narration: age, family, etc.
The development of the 'I' character is all done near the beginning of the article, and the writer moves on to use facts about her situation to tell her story. I felt that even the factual information was able to convey a sense of emotion and feeling in the story, without the writer having to explicitly state her emotions and feelings, which I thought was consistent with what Norman Sims described as good literary journalism.
I could also easily recognize the writer's voice throughout the piece, which was intimate: mocking, humorous, frank. For example, she writes about how easy it was to choose a spot for her tattoo because the aging process had "set in everywhere else." The statement wasn't judgmental, but rather straightforward and self-mocking about the state of the writer's body at that age. The writer's voice conveys a contentment with her situation; she acknowledges the hardships she has had to face and does not down-play them, but at the same time, she is happy to be where she is now. The frank, subtly joking language used in this piece was therefore very effective in conveying this sentiment.
I liked the flow of the narrative, because it was chronological, progressive and logical (and I am a scientist). The writer flowed from one situation to the next, without making use of the technique of digression that I had noticed in some other personal pieces we read this week. She begins with the background of her cancer, moving to the first logical question of 'where do I put a tattoo?', then on to 'what do I get a tattoo of?'. The writer does use effective intermittent placement of the present tense in a mostly past-tense narrative to break up the flow, though. The last sentence, which transitions into the present tense, works well to signify the 'rite of passage' that getting a tattoo symbolized.
At the turning point, the writer finally decided on what her tattoo would be and the resulting significance it would have. I liked how earlier in the piece, the writer suggests that she needs the 'all-caps YES' to go ahead with a design, but later, she doesn't explicitly state that the Concord Bridge was an 'all-caps YES' to her; rather, it is implied and up to the reader to envision how relieved the writer was to find something that was perfectly symbolic for her.
This piece was most appealing to me because I have a tattoo as well. I am not a rash person, but getting a tattoo was one of the most rash things I have ever done. I actually worked out the design first, creating something that is symbolic for me and extremely personal. Then, the placement came to me in a dream, and everything came together. I got a tattoo the next day. I could relate to the writer in terms of this process and was impressed by her recollection of the event!
I think that I will take from this article the writer's use of flow. I am a logical person, and the way this narrative flow seemed like it would fit my voice. Also, her varied use of tenses was very effective upon closer reading, and I think that I could use a technique like that to my advantage in a narrative that has a scientific-method-like flow to break it up, without having to completely digress and insert anecdotes that aren't chronological.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Wow, Jenny! I am really impressed by your thorough and cogent reading response! Seriously, I think you did an awesome job connecting the piece to other concepts and articles and to your own personal life as well.
My only thing is that I actually didn't like how she described the "All Caps" moment. I suppose I wondered if there wasn't another way to say it because that feels almost a little cliche to me.
Also, I'm curious about the significance of your tatoo. Maybe that would be good fodder for the personal essay. Do you know what you are doing yet?
I read this story and constantly felt like she was writing it to justify getting her tattoo. In the end, she did justify it, and she did it well. I didn't read into all of her style as thoughfully as you did, JT, but you make some great, insightful points. The one characteristic that stuck out for me, too, was her flow. I to finish an article and say, "Ahh, that was nice." Not too long, not too short -- and I was consumed by it the entire time. That's good flow.
I love how you so clearly bring your own experience (as a scientist, as one who chose a tattoo) to this reading. It is, in itself, a kind of personal esssay. Bravo!
Have you thought about what you might write about for your personal essay?
Jtizzle, good job going above and beyond on the close reading of the story. I think you've got the idea of what Marin wants us to do with the text - look at what the writer is doing as a writer to better understand this form of journalism. Surprisingly, I also agreed with your statement, "I liked the flow of the narrative, because it was chronological, progressive and logical (and I am a scientist)." I also like these types of stories because when I read articles I read for STORY. To me, the story is the most important thing that the writer needs to get across to keep the reader reading. So, while I didn't like the author and some of her writing, I did like her technique of story-telling. Good first post!
Now I think I understand how we're supposed to approach this kind of writing! I wasn't quite sure at first. I also understand this piece a little bit better... at first, it kind of seemed over-symbolized, but after re-reading it and reading your response to it I really "get" what she was trying to do with the piece. Very cool!
Post a Comment